CCPR/C/115/D/2474/2014 author filed two applications to have the Board’s negative decision on his appeal reversed. On 22 July and 15 December 2011, the Board determined that there were no grounds for reversal. On 26 December 2012, the author filed an appeal before the Oslo District Court. As a witness in the proceedings before the Court, the former senior priest testified that he was impressed by the author’s broad and profound commitment to Christianity. On 21 June 2012, the Court granted the author’s appeal, finding that he had developed a deeper knowledge of Christianity after the issuance of the Board’s decision and that his conversion was therefore genuine. The Court also granted the author’s motion for an “interlocutory injunction” to stay his removal until the conclusion of domestic proceedings. 2.6 On an unspecified date, the Board appealed the judgement of the Oslo District Court before the Borgarting Court of Appeals. On 12 March 2014, the Court of Appeals dismissed the decision of the Oslo District Court. On 15 April 2014, the author appealed the decision of the Court of Appeals before the Norwegian Supreme Court, which dismissed the appeal on 24 June 2014. 2.7 The author submits that, in the light of the decisions of the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court, he has exhausted all available and effective domestic remedies. He asserts that he cannot be required to provide so-called new information and to again go through domestic proceedings. Furthermore, he has no financial means to do so, and he is no longer receiving pro bono assistance. On 24 September 2014, the author submitted an application to the European Court of Human Rights concerning his deportation from Norway to Afghanistan. On 1 October 2014, the application was declared inadmissible; the European Court did not disclose the reasons for its decision. The complaint 3.1 The author submits that Norway would violate his rights under articles 2 (3) and 7 of the Covenant by forcibly removing him to Afghanistan, where he fears a real risk of serious and irreversible harm, of being killed or subjected to ill-treatment. He maintains that the domestic courts that ruled against him erred in several respects. First, the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court erred by failing to consider relevant facts that arose after the Immigration Appeals Board issued its second decision rejecting the author’s application to reverse the asylum decision of the Directorate of Immigration. The author argues that the courts limited their assessment to a consideration of facts that existed at the time when the final domestic decision ordering the author’s deportation was rendered. The author maintains that instead, the courts should have adhered to the approach of the European Court of Human Rights, which examines relevant facts existing at the time of the Court proceedings. 3.2 Second, the author submits that the domestic courts subjected his claim to a higher evidentiary threshold because he is an Afghan convert and emphasized that they focused in particular on his “personal reflection about the conversion” and the “consequences of the conversion”. The author maintains that in assessing his credibility, the courts should have followed the approach of the European Court, which gives asylum seekers the benefit of the doubt because of the vulnerable position they are often in. 3 3.3 Third, the author argues that the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court erred in their evidentiary assessments and failed to recognize that his Christian belief is genuine, as he has consistently and expressly been considered a true Christian by senior representatives of the Church of Norway and no concrete evidence to the contrary has been put forward by any witnesses or Church representatives. To substantiate this claim, the author provides recent statements by the former senior priest at Oslo Cathedral dated 22 September 2014, a 3 4 The author cites European Court of Human Rights application No. 43611/11, F.G. v. Sweden, judgement of 16 January 2014, para. 34. The author states that this decision has not been finalized.